I would like Pakistan to be a secular democracy and give up its ambitions on Kashmir. Badshah
Badshah Sahib’s argument is novel: Pakistan should become a secular democracy and give up its claims to Kashmir. The implication is that this is the only path to normalcy.
Not a Carbon Copy
Pakistan was not founded as a copy of India with a different flag. It was conceived as a Muslim-majority polity with constitutional distinctiveness. Whether that distinctiveness should mean theocracy, secularism, or something hybrid is a political question for Pakistanis.
Similarly the core Hindu-Dharmic civilizational nature of India, that is Bharat, is for Indians to decide. Outsiders demanding secularism often mistake their own preferences for universal law.
The Iranian Example
Iran offers a comparison. It is not secular, yet it is not medieval. It combines elections, clerical oversight, and state bureaucracy. One may criticise its system, but it is coherent. Turkey tried aggressive secularism and is now reversing course. The Gulf monarchies combine monarchy and Islamic legitimacy. There is more than one model available to Muslim-majority states.
UK as a model
The deeper issue is institutional competence, not theological vocabulary. A state fails when its institutions are weak, its economy stagnant, and its elite extractive. It does not fail merely because it references religion in its constitution. The United Kingdom retains an established church. Israel defines itself religiously. India invokes civilisational identity. The presence of religious language does not determine state capacity.
The Centrality of Kashmir
The Kashmir question is similar. From Islamabad’s perspective, Kashmir is not a hobby but foundational to its national story. Expecting Pakistan to abandon it unilaterally is unrealistic. At the same time, perpetual confrontation has imposed costs. A state must decide whether symbolic commitments are worth material stagnation. That is a strategic calculation, not a moral lecture.
Integrating different streams
There is also a harder internal question. Pakistan’s territory contains deep civilisational layers that predate 1947: Indus Valley sites, Gandharan Buddhism, Sikh shrines, Hindu temples, Persianate courts. A confident Muslim state need not deny these layers. Integration of this inheritance does not weaken Islamic identity. It strengthens historical depth.
Uniquely Indus
A viable Pakistani model would not copy Tehran or Ankara. It would clarify its own hierarchy: civilian supremacy over the military, constitutional limits on clerical authority, predictable economic rules, and space for dissent within an Islamic framework. That would be an “enlightened” Muslim state in practical terms, not rhetorical ones.
False Dichotomy
The choice is not between secular democracy and permanent instability. The choice is between institutional reform and drift. Religious identity can coexist with pluralism if the rules are clear and enforced evenly.
Weak Governance
Pakistan does not need to renounce its self-definition. It does need to decide whether its ambitions are symbolic or structural. Ambition without reform produces stagnation. Reform without coherence produces chaos. The problem is not Islam. The problem is governance. If Pakistan wishes to demonstrate that a Muslim-majority state can be modern, prosperous, and self-confident, it will not do so by copying others. It will do so by building institutions strong enough that identity stops being the only thing holding the country together.
Pakistan is an ideological state–whether we like it or not. That ideology is the “Two Nation Theory”. The Pakistan Army is the official guardian of that ideology.
Whether that is good for Pakistan or not is a separate question. In reality, as long as aggressive Hindutva is on the rise in India, the TNT will remain the “ideology of Pakistan”.
India is of course free to re-write its constitution. Non Indians can’t do anything about that. However, as of today, secularism is a basic principle of the Indian constitution.
Bangladesh is another example. It was founded as a secular state but later on Islam was introduced as the state religion. Technically, a secular state cannot have a state religion. There is a confusion there that Bangladeshis need to sort out.
On the point about Pakistan owning its pre-Islamic history: I don’t think that our governments are against this history. Mohenjodero, Harappa, Taxila, Katas Raj etc are all promoted by the government as part of Pakistan’s history. Sikhs come every year to Nankana Sahab and Kartarpur Sahab.
I have consistently argued for Pakistan to own all the history that lies within our geographical boundaries.